[Previous by date - Re: what prevents us from establishing...]
[Next by date - Art. 20]
[Previous by subject - Notation for Distincton Between Systems]
[Next by subject - Now online: Critique of Benton's (2000) "critique" of the Ph=]
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:34:47 +0100
From: "peter a. cejchan" <cej@gli.cas.cz>
To: PhyloCodeList <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Note 9.4.1
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Do we really need node- and stem-based definitions? Perhaps molecular = phylogenies (seem to) force us to use these. However, adhering solely to = apomorphy-based definitions would simplify Art. 13. Are there other = cases for node- and stem-based d's than are the distance-based = phylogenies? Just my opinion, as usually... ++pac --Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-2"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do we really need node- and stem-based = definitions?=20 Perhaps molecular phylogenies (seem to) force us to use these. However, = adhering=20 solely to apomorphy-based definitions would simplify Art. 13. Are there = other=20 cases for node- and stem-based d's than are the distance-based = phylogenies? Just=20 my opinion, as usually...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>++pac</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA)--